Debate the issues facing Seattle Public Schools, share your opinions, read the latest news. Organize and work for high quality public schools that educate all students to become passionate, lifelong learners.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Cracks Starting to Show in Ed Reform's Veneer

It's not entirely surprising to see this slippage happening in the ed reform world; indeed, with the deep and moneyed pockets they have, it's almost a surprise.

But my theory is that they tend to believe that they 1) know all the answers and so 2) they exist in an echo chamber. As I read my Twitter feed daily, I'm astonished at the same 10 subjects, rehashed and repackaged over and over.

All of what I want to discuss in this thread will be leading to another thread on what the new "story" is for ed reform and it comes around "equity."

Here's the latest news on this front.
From The Washington Post, Reformers ‘disrupted’ public education. Now an Ivy League dean says the consequences for kids can be ‘devastating' byPam Grossman, dean of the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of
Education and a specialist in teacher education and development.

But in education, disruption that ignores research about what works can
disrupt children’s lives and opportunities. As we have seen in the
cities where these experiment are being tried on the biggest scale —
Detroit, New Orleans, Philadelphia — when disruption fails, the
consequences for children are devastating.

Many education reformers touting disruption ignore the very things that
research shows will make the greatest difference in student performance —
hiring and retaining strong teachers and principals. Often the actual
educators seem to be an afterthought in grander plans to change the
structure or technology of schooling.

There are certainly elements of American education that would benefit
from disruption.

Halting the flight of educators from the profession or
reversing the declining number of teachers of color in our schools would
be well worth the disruption.

Re-investing in public education so that
schools serving our most vulnerable children aren’t forced to compete
over scarce resources would also be a welcome disruption.

We should
certainly disrupt the trend of providing less and less preparation for
teachers entering the most challenging schools and districts.

But reformers should take research into account and focus on strategies
that are proven to work. That starts with taking the recruitment,
development, and retention of teachers and leaders much more seriously.
It’s not as sexy as iPads for all, but it’s much more likely to succeed
in the long haul.

I did already do my charter news round-up but here's another story where one state's auditor calls them out. From Newsworks:

Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale issued a scathing report
damning the state charter law Tuesday, and he blamed many of the School
District of Philadelphia's fiscal woes on state lawmakers who have not
revised the nearly 20-year-old measure.

"Our charter school law is simply the worst charter school law in the
United States," said DePasquale at a news conference at Philadelphia's
district headquarters.

Why is this happening?

He blamed recent failed efforts in Harrisburg to reform the charter law on special interest lobbying."What else could it be?" he said, citing the popularity of reforms in preliminary votes.

Often a booster of the charter sector, School Reform Commissioner Farah
Jimenez supported DePasquale's findings, and specifically criticized the
fact that charters have a perverse fiscal incentive to enroll special education students with less costly needs.

And here's this on the heels of my thread on charter schools and the huge issues over the Gulen charter chain.

We know that there are many of them, at least 160. That makes it the second largest chain in the nation, behind KIPP. We know that they operate in many states under different names. We know that a number of them have been raided by the FBI and that
questions have been raised about their awarding contracts to Turkish
contractors, even when they were not the low bidder. We know that they are not financially transparent.

Look, I won’t pretend we haven’t had problems — in some cases,
big problems — with fiscal opacity in public district schools. But
charter schools, because they are not state actors, are not subject to
the same standards of transparency as public district schools. Once the
money flows past the non-profit shell of a charter school and to its
aligned management organization or property lease holder, all bets are
off.

We are now seeing a very real and very serious consequence of this
lack of transparency. It’s not at all an exaggeration to say our
national security interests may have been compromised by allowing this
network to flourish within our borders — and, again, for what?

If the Gulen charter chain finds itself in even more trouble (beyond the FBI raids and investigations by both the Department of Education and Department of Labor), you could see a lot of charter schools in trouble.

Another interesting item is the unity of Republicans and Democrats over the new Every Child Succeeds Act. Between chairs of the committee, Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Patty Murray, they managed to get everyone on-board which, as we all know from watching President Obama get almost nothing done in Congress, is quite a feat. But what would a President Clinton do (she's wavering on charters) or (God forbid) a President Trump?

What's also fascinating is the tug-of-war over narrative about public education and reform and who gets to own it. (It doesn't seem to occur to some that we all own this discussion and no one gets to decide - not even Bill Gates - the form of that discussion. More on him in a minute.)

The New Schools Venture Fund - a very high-powered ed reform group - had their annual meeting in San Francisco in April and apparently, some were quite taken aback at the heavy veer to social justice. Now this is odd because many ed reformers used to say reforming public education WAS "the civil rights issue of our time" and now, not so much. (I do suspect the on-going killings of black people by police and the rise of Black Lives Matter may have made ed reformers rethink trying to take over the mantle of civil rights.)

From Flypaper (a blog at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute), The Left's drive to push conservatives out of education reform (long but worth the read):

At the opening plenary session of
the New Schools Venture Fund meeting in San Francisco earlier this
month, CEO Stacy Childress promised attendees that the meeting was going
to “push” them to explore issues of race, equity, and education.

“There were moments when I wondered, ‘Are we going to talk about
anything but personal narratives and how terrible structural racism
is?’” asked this attendee, a senior executive at a national education
nonprofit. “When are we going to talk about education?”

Like the proverbial frog in a pot, education reformers on the political
right find themselves coming to a slow boil in the cauldron of social
justice activism. At meetings like New Schools Venture Fund and Pahara
(a leadership development program run by the Aspen Institute),
conservative reformers report feeling unwelcome, uncomfortable, and
cowed into silence. There is an unmistakable and increasingly aggressive
orthodoxy in mainstream education reform thought regarding issues of
race, class, and gender. And it does not include conservative ideas.

Some will surely dismiss this as mere whining by “voices of privilege”
who find themselves on “the wrong side of history.” But that would be a
serious strategic mistake, as ideas from the right have a lot to
contribute to the reform conversation. Conservative theories of action
are based on strong evidence of two claims: that markets have taken more
people out of poverty than any force in history, and that full
membership in civil society gives individuals and their groups power,
builds social capital, and enables communities to thrive and express
themselves fully. These are ideas that need no apology and merit a full
hearing. “We conservatives do not cede the moral high ground,” one
reformer told me.

Haidt’s phrase—a tribal moral community less hospitable to dissenting
views—is an apt description of the brand of reform on display at
gatherings like New Schools and within Pahara. “You only get to go to
those things if you’re invited. And you’re only invited if you know
people who are in the clique,” notes a senior executive at an education
policy nonprofit.

And here's the editor's note from that article:

Editor's Note: Comment have been turned off for this essay because they were getting unnecessarily acrimonious and threatening.

So what is Bill Gates up to now? Well, what he and the Gates Foundation do best; throw more money to create faux education groups. From Mercedes Schneider,Education Leaders of Color: Same Reforms, Newly Packaged and Gates Funded

The Gates Foundation is funding a brand-spanking new corporate reform
nonprofit (that happens to be stuffed with veterans from two very
familiar corporate reform nonprofits): Education Leaders of Color (EdLoC).

Purpose: to
support the staffing and general infrastructure necessary to develop a
new organization of talented leaders of color who are uniquely
positioned to transform the national and local education landscape to
achieve improvement on a scale that we all seek in the education and
lives of underserved children of color

This *talented* group is set to put a new, not-so-white face on the
worn-out wonders of test-centric, privatizing reforms propagated by the
likes of Teach for America (TFA) and The New Teacher Project (TNTP).

In fact, if EdLoC were to remove all of its team wit TFA and TNTP connections, well, there wouldn’t be much of an EdLoC.

That Bill - such tenacity in the face of so many dollars wasted.

From The American Enterprise Institute and Alexander Russo, The Empire Strikes Back: The Sudden Rise and Ongoing Challenges of Democrats for Education Reform:

Conflicts with teachers unions and other traditional education
stakeholders steadily heated up over the years, thanks in part to DFER’s
dogged focus on charter school expansion (and charter school funders),
challenges to sitting incumbents, and reform implementation challenges.

DFER became increasingly exposed when unions and others shifted their
support for Common Core and began attacking the organization as part of a
“corporate reform” movement led by white elites. Meanwhile, DFER was
slow to broaden its agenda to include immigration, school discipline,
and other social justice issues.

The backlash against “corporate reform” nationally and in places like
Newark would surprise DFER and its allies with its power and suddenness.
They found their ideas—such as common standards for all children—used
as a proxy to fight back against them.

Could DFER—founded to create a “safe place” for pro-charter,
reform-oriented Democratic politicians to make much-needed changes to
the education system—find ways to deepen and expand its successes
without such a close ally in the White House as it had enjoyed during
the Obama administration? Could DFER find new ways to influence the
political process at the state and local levels, as it had done for a
time federally?

DFER seems to losing their footing in the Democratic party. What's
always interested me about DFER is there are no numbers on them. Who
IS part of DFER? As a Dem, I only know the people who head WA DFER but
no one else who claims to be part of their group. Sometimes I ask
people at my LD meetings about DFER and get a blank stare. I think DFER
is a small group with deep pockets who thought they were golden because
of Arne Duncan and his reach to the ear of President Obama. It does
not appear to be the same now with Hillary Clinton.

A very good article form Education Next about both the George W. Bush years and the Barack Obama years and school reform (but keeping in mind they are mostly conservative ed reformers.)

A new federal law, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), has
unraveled most of the federal red tape. Although the mandate for student
testing continues, the use of the tests is now a state and local
matter. School districts and teachers unions are rubbing their hands at
the prospect of reasserting local control.

With districts beset by collective bargaining agreements, organized
special interests, and state requirements, choice and competition are
the main levers of reform that remain. Vouchers and tax credits are
slowly broadening their legal footing. Charter schools are growing in
number, improving in quality, and beginning to pose genuine competition
to public schools, especially within big cities. Introducing such
competition is the best hope for American schools, because today’s
public schools are showing little capacity to improve on their own.

Local control? That's a bad thing for communities that know their regions, their districts and their student populations to want to shape education for those needs?

Are charter schools "improving in quality?" Hard to tell and after 25 years, you'd think it would be really clear.

They whine about the gap in the PISA scores which, if you understand who is taking the test in these countries, is fairly easy to explain away. But more on NCLB:

As the goal was to make all students proficient by 2014, the explanations proliferated with each passing year.
The utopian goal set for 2014 was never meant to be taken seriously.
After all, NCLB, like many other federal laws, had a five-year
expiration date, and it was generally assumed that a new piece of
legislation would be on the books by 2007, long before the
full-proficiency deadline was reached.

Wait, what? They were kidding all along? I missed that somehow and it sounds like some back-pedaling to explain why NCLB didn't have better outcomes.

But as Martha Derthick wrote at the time, waivers “undermine the rule of
law,” raising “a concern that extends well beyond the field of
education.” Secretary Duncan had left himself badly exposed by
constructing an education policy on a series of questionable
administrative maneuvers rather than a solid piece of congressional
legislation. Political opposition began to arise to two of the waivers’
key recommendations—establishing higher state standards and tightening
teacher evaluations. Tea Party activists attacked Common Core, objecting
to what the Heritage Foundation called the Obama administration’s
intent to nationalize “the content taught in every public school across
America.” And teachers unions tightened the screws by balking at unfair
evaluations of teacher performance.

And the outcome?

As an education reform strategy, federal regulation is dead. The
regulations had little long-term effect, and the political opposition
crescendoed.

And the future?

If reform is to take place as the rest of the 21st century unfolds, it
will happen because more competition is being introduced into the
American education system.

Introducing competition is slow, arduous, disruptive, upsetting, and
politically divisive. Benefits come slowly. Losses are painful. The
politics is messy at best, disastrous at worst. Winners are ingrates who
feel they deserve any benefits they enjoy. Losers blame not themselves
but changes in the rules of the game. But the long-term consequences of
competition for consumers and society as a whole can be amazingly
beneficial, as deregulation of the airlines and telecommunications
industries has shown.

It's hard to even know how to comment on that paragraph, it is so fraught with issues of "who gets hurt" while all this competition is going on. The article goes on to extol the virtues of vouchers, charter schools,

Thirty-five years after these words were penned, Wisconsin enacted a voucher program for the city of Milwaukee.

And when was the last time you saw Milwaukee held up as a shining star in public education? The article says these plans are not "at scale" but heck, I think a whole city is a fairly big scale and they've had a program for 35 years. You'd think it would be possible to know if vouchers make for better outcomes for all students

Charter Schools In other words, charter schools compete with district schools for
students. The greater the number of charter schools, the more intense
the competition.
Admittedly, charter schools have had difficulty penetrating rural
communities. There, a public school, no matter its quality, is perceived
as a valuable community institution.

I grew up in a rural area so I know what they are saying about the magnitude of schools to a rural area but you know what? Those kids in Detroit who lost their schools lost much for their communities and that's why closing schools is so hard. I don't think there is any "perceived" about it.

Will the competition between charters and standard, district-operated
public schools intensify over the next decade? Is this competition the
new reform wave that will sweep over American education? Is there a
tipping point at which the demand for charters will force a
reconstruction of the educational system more generally?

That's a great question but much of that has less to do with how good charters versus how they are regulated and sold.

Education Acroynms

Advanced Learning - SPS' three-tier program for advanced learners. Made up of APP, Spectrum and ALOs. (Note: the name of the district program is "Advanced Learning Services and Programs" but these three programs fall under "Highly Capable Services" of AL Services and Programs.

ALO - Advanced Learning Opportunity, the third tier of SPS' Advanced Learning program

AP - Advanced Placement. A national program of college-level classes given in high schools.

APP - Accelerated Progress Program. One of the levels of the Advanced Learning Program. NOTE: the name of this program is now "HIGHLY CAPABLE COHORT." This change occurred in 2014.

ASB - Associated Student Body. High school leadership groups.

AYP - Adequate Yearly Progress. Part of NCLB.

BEX - Building Excellence. SPS' capital renovation/rebuilding program that is funded via the BEX levy. Every 3 years there is the Operations levy and either the BEX or BTA levies as those two levies rotate in six year cycles).

BLT - Building Leadership Team. Staff members at a school who meet regularly to discuss building issues.

BTA - Buildings, Technology, Academics. The major maintenance/other capital fund for SPS. Originally BTA was to cover major maintenance like HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning), roofs, waterlines, etc.) but now covers wide swaths of items like athletic fields, technology and funding academic needs.

CAICEE - Community Advisory Committee for Investing in Educational Excellence. Created by former Superintendent Manhas in 2008, to issue a report about reform recommendations for SPS.

CSIP - Continuous School Improvement Plan, the plan for improvement for each school as required by state law.

EOC - End of Course Assessments, given in math and science, required for high school graduationESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal law that governs education, includes the NCLB accountability provisions.

e-STEM or e-STEAM - STEM or STEAM curriculum with an environmental focus.

FACMAC - Facilities and Capacity Management Advisory Committee. A district committee comprises of an all-volunteer citizen group created in 2012 to help bring research and ideas to capacity management issues in the district.

FERPA - Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. A federal law that protects students' privacy

FRL - Free and reduced lunch.

FTE - Full Time Equivalent

FY - Fiscal Year

Highly Capable Services - NEW name (as of 2014) as umbrella name for these programs: Highly Capable Cohort (formerly APP), Spectrum and ALO (Advanced Learning Opportunities).

HSPE - High School Proficiency Exam, state assessment that replaced the WASL for 10th graders, required for graduation

HQT - Highly Qualified Teacher, a standard set by federal law

IA - Instructional Assistant

IB - International Baccalaureate program. An international program of advanced classes that can either be taken as stand alone or as part of an overall IB program.

IDEA - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The federal law that governs special education

MAP - Measures of Academic Progress. A computer-based adaptive assessment made by NWEA and originally purchased by the district for use as a district-wide formative assessment but now used for a wide variety of purposes.

MSP - Measurement of Student Progress, the state proficiency assessment that replaced the WASL for students in grades 1-8

MTSS - Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

NCLB - No Child Left Behind, a provision of the federal education law, ESEA, introduced during the George W. Bush administration